The following is a discussion between councilman Drew Nielsen and myself.
>> >> *From:* C.J. Adams-Collier [mailto:email@example.com] >> >> *Sent:* Mon 2/6/2006 10:19 PM *To:* Drew Nielsen *Subject:* >> >> Community Access Wireless Network > > >> >> Hello Drew, > > >> >> I got your name from _____. She tells me that you are >> >> involved in an effort to decide the direction of a community >> >> access wireless network in downtown Everett. I have some >> >> experience "in the trenches" as it were that I would be happy to >> >> provide to the council. > > >> >> Let me know if I may be of any help, > > >> >> C.J. > > > > >> >> -- >> >> http://cjcollier.livejournal.com/tag/ +1 206 226 5809 > > Drew Nielsen wrote: >> >> Community Access Wireless Network C.J., > > >> >> The Council's Technology Committee is exploring ad-supported >> >> wi-fi provided free to Everett residents. Antennas would be >> >> attached to street-light support arms and would draw power from >> >> the photoelectric cell that controls the light. The light >> >> support arm is owned by the PUD, which also owns the lights, >> >> lenses and photoelectric cells, so a wi-fi provider needs to have >> >> the permission of the PUD, not the City, to attach its antennas >> >> to the poles. > > >> >> The PUD is willing in principle to enter into a Master License >> >> Agreement allowing the placement of equipment on the poles. The >> >> rate charged for communications equipment is regulated (I?m not >> >> sure by whom). The PUD requires conformance with standards such >> >> that plugging equipment into the photoelectric cell will not void >> >> the manufacturer?s warranty for the cell. At this point we know >> >> of one company, MetroFi, which is interested in Everett. MetroFi >> >> is currently doing its feasibility research. Since the >> >> pole-attachment agreement would be between the provider and the >> >> PUD there was consensus of the Technology Committee that the City >> >> should engage in an economic development effort, where the City >> >> sets out to attract a wi-fi provider to Everett by providing >> >> assistance and support, just as we do with many other companies >> >> considering a presence in Everett. MetroFi would not target >> >> downtown, but the proximity of residences might mean that there >> >> would be coverage there. > > >> >> I'd be interested if you have any information that would be >> >> helpful in this process. > > >> >> Drew Nielsen > > >> >> Everett City Council > > *From:* C.J. Adams-Collier [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > > *Sent:* Tue 2/7/2006 11:10 AM *To:* Drew Nielsen *Subject:* Re: > > Community Access Wireless Network > > > > Drew, > > > > This email was very educational, thank you. > > > > My thoughts are that the residents of the city of Everett (or the > > population of Snohomish County by way of the PUD) should own the > > WiFi infrastructure and not the telecommunication industry. I > > think that the funds set aside to pay MetroFi's fees would be > > better used to organize a board of Everett residents (ie, a WiFi > > task force) as network policy and use administrators. I would not > > like to see Everett's potential for a Community Access Network > > privatized. This is especially true if the city can, with the help > > of residents, build an equal or better infrastructure. > > > > The technical details are spot on, and it seems that you have some > > very capable people already working with the City on this project. > > I would like to know a bit about what wireless hardware is being > > considered, and how much transparency the network administrators > > expect to share with the City and the PUD. > > > > Do I have your permission to make this conversation public record? > > > > Thank you, > > > > C.J. Drew Nielsen wrote: > > Re: Community Access Wireless Network C.J., > > > > I have no objection to your sharing this communication with anyone > > you wish. > > > > Let me clarify that MetroFi -- if that is who we end up dealing > > with -- would not be paid any fee nor would the City of Everett > > spend any money. That is why the City Council is exploring > > advertising supported wi-fi. No wi-fi provider would have > > exclusive rights to use the power poles, so another company could > > also enter into a Master Licensing Agreement with the PUD. > > > > What I can tell you about the hardware is that it uses 802.11x > > technology with a range of about 500 feet in diameter. It would > > likely require about 300 antennas to reach most of the residences > > in the City. > > > > I've now told you pretty much everything I know at this early > > point. > > > > Drew Nielsen Thank you! I will share this information with some of my compatriots and see if we can provide any useful recommendations. Cheers, C.J.
One response to “Discussion with City of Everett about Community Wireless Network (CWN)”
Interview with Richard Lotz, one of the founders of the Seattle Wireless Network.
(13:10:38) C.J. Adams-Collier: Please leave a comment on my latest
(13:20:55) Richard: your blog style cuts off the right edge of the
fixed width text, at least at the font size on my
laptop and desktop.
(13:22:09) Richard: MetroFi’s web guy … calls a desktop wireless
interface a “wireless modem”
(14:30:06) C.J. Adams-Collier: Hmmm… some users assume anything that
sits outside of your computer and gets
you on the internet to be a “modem”
(14:30:48) C.J. Adams-Collier: and for some value of “modulate,” the
radio does do a bit of “modulate /
demodulate” [or mo/dem] activity
(14:30:47) Richard: looking at the screen shot of their service I’d
personally find the ads annoying.
(14:31:28) Richard: As a city I’d be concerned about what is being
advertised, I’d want to ensure pricing is such
that local, small business are able to
(14:32:13) C.J. Adams-Collier: may I consider comments made after my
request for comments at 13:10:38 to be
(14:35:20) Richard: yeah, you’re free to post what ever I say [with
regards to] this :)